Siman 329

We learned in the second chapter of Challah (Mishnah 2): Dough that was kneaded with fruit juice is obligated in challah. The Rosh and the Bartenura wrote that from the Yerushalmi it is proven that the halakhah is not like this Mishnah. Therefore, one should not knead dough that has the measure of challah with egg liquid or fruit juice alone without an admixture of water, since the halakhah has not been clarified whether it is obligated in challah or exempt. Thus far their words. The Rashba in a response (siman 464) replied to the Rosh that from the Yerushalmi there is no proof, for there is a dispute there, and therefore the halakhah is like the anonymous Mishnah, see there. And behold, it is explicitly explained in the Yerushalmi there that even those who disagree with the Mishnah only do so regarding fruit juices that are not of the seven liquids, but regarding the seven liquids, everyone agrees. And so it is stated there: Rabbi Chiyya in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: You have nothing clearer than all of them except for the seven liquids alone. See there.

And behold, according to this, bread baked with milk and butter, which they call "butter kuchen," or with oil, which they call "oil challah," it is obvious that according to all opinions it is obligated in challah and in a blessing, for they are of the seven liquids. Yet the world is accustomed to also take challah from these without a blessing, and it is an error. And the error stems from the words of the Tur, who wrote: A dough kneaded with egg liquid or with wine or honey without any water, the Rambam wrote that it is obligated in challah. And my lord father was in doubt regarding the matter, and wrote: It is good to be careful not to knead dough with egg liquid alone without an admixture of water, in order to escape the hands of doubt. Thus far his words. And they understood his intention to be that the Rosh also disagrees regarding wine and honey. But it is not so, for he only refers to egg liquid. And so wrote the commentators of the Tur (Derisha and Bach).

Therefore, the practical halacha is that when one kneads with milk, butter, oil, honey, or wine, if there is the measure for challah—they are obligated in challah according to all opinions and with a blessing. Only "kuchlach" made from eggs are without a blessing, and even this is when there is no water at all. But when there is water or the liquid of "groats," as they are accustomed to bake in our times—this is also obligated in challah and with a blessing, as is clear from the wording of the Tur. And so it is in the Yerushalmi there, because this law depends on the susceptibility to tumah, and fruit juices do not render susceptible, but the seven liquids render susceptible on their own. And there are also some great authorities who erred in this. (See Pitchei Teshuva subsection 2, where the Panim Meirot and the Beit Ephraim disputed our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the Levush on this.)

Aside from this, one should not bake with fruit juices such as eggs and the like without water, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work in the name of the Semak. This is his wording: Our teacher Netanel was meticulous regarding egg water in the amount of thirty times the shiur of challah because it is tahor, for fruit juices do not render susceptible to tumah, and what shall he do with its challah? He cannot burn it, since it is tahor. And he also cannot eat it, since most people are not tehorim. However, he can give it to a kohen katan. And it is proper to mix water or wine or oil or honey with the eggs, so that it will be rendered susceptible through them, and it becomes tamei challah and is burned. Thus far his words. And these words of his, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote them in the Shulchan Aruch in section 10 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 329:10). And the seven liquids are wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, water. And if he transgressed and kneaded with eggs alone—he shall not burn the challah, but rather give it to a kohen katan. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 329:9) ruled that dough kneaded with fruit juices is obligated in challah, thus far his words, because he wrote in his great work that the opinion of the Rambam in the sixth chapter (Rambam Hilkhot Bikkurim 6) is so. And it is astonishing, for the Rambam did not mention fruit juices at all, but rather wine and oil and honey (and the Pnei Moshe already questioned this in the Yerushalmi there). However, the Tur also wrote this in the name of the Rambam, see there (see Bach). Nevertheless, for the halachah, he should separate without a berakhah, or when he separates from another dough—he should bring it into contact with it and intend for it as well. (And this is the intention of the Shach, subsection 9. And the Levush questioned him for naught, as the Pitchei Teshuvah wrote. And his intention is as I have written. Examine and you will find it simple.)

We learned in the first chapter of Challah (Mishnah 4): Sufganin, and duvshanin, and iskretin, and challat hamishret—are exempt from challah. The Rambam explained, and this is his wording: They are types of bread. However, from the beginning of their kneading, they perform a different labor with them, and mix into them oil or honey, or season them with spices, and bake them in manners different from the standard manners of baking. And they call them names according to the things mixed into them. And according to the labor of their baking as well; the translation of "wafer matzot" is "asfognin." "Patirin" and "duvshanin" are called so because they are kneaded with honey. And "iskretin" is the translation of "kitzpihit," and the translation of "pan" is "masrita." And from this derivation they said "challat hamishret." Thus far his words. And I am astonished that in his composition, chapter six, he did not mention this Mishnah at all, see there. And later we will explain his reason regarding this.

But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 329:1) wrote it, and this is their wording: There is no obligation of challah except with bread, as it is written: "And it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land." Therefore, the sufganin which are made like a sponge, thin wafers, and the duvshanin and the iskritin which are fried in honey—are exempt from challah. And dough whose batter is soft, etc. Thus far their words. And from all this it is clarified that even if its batter is thick like the way of all doughs and as I wrote in section 13, since one places in them recognizable things that are not for bread, such as very thin wafers or duvshanin which are called lekach which is not bread. And even though bread kneaded with honey is obligated in challah, nevertheless, lekach does not have the name "bread" upon it and it is not an eating for satiation but rather for a dessert with the drinking of brandy and the like, as is known. And it is not similar to kichlach and butter kuchen and boimil challah that we explained are obligated in challah, for there it is like bread and one eats them for satiation in the manner of eating. But lekach and thin wafers which are only for a mere dessert—are not in the category of bread at all. (And I saw in the Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 2 in the name of the Panim Meirot, that this regarding duvshanin deals with a soft batter. And so wrote the Be'er Heitev that on lekach one should separate without a blessing. And this is because it was difficult for them: for honey is of the seven liquids. And they did not see the words of the Rambam in his commentary, and they did not descend to distinguish in this which we explained. However, regarding the law, it will be explained further on. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And the Rambam appears to have rejected this Mishnah from the halacha, and therefore did not write it in his work. And his reason appears to me to be because in the Yerushalmi it says regarding this Mishnah: The sufganin – trikta etc. Rabbi Yochanan said: trikta is obligated in challah etc. Resh Lakish said: it is not obligated in challah etc. Rabbi Yose said: another [explanation]. Rabbi Yochanan said: anything under which the fire travels – is obligated in challah etc. and Resh Lakish said it is not obligated in challah etc. Rabbi Yochanan said to him: provided it is by means of liquid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan: The sufganin etc. – he resolved it as referring to sufganin that were made in the sun etc. (so it must be said). And the Rambam holds that the halacha is like Rabbi Yose, and it is not exempt except for that which is made in the sun. And this law he explained there.

And also in our Shas it is similar to this; in Pesachim (Pesachim 37a) the Shas brings this Mishna: Resh Lakish said: These are the products of an ilpas. And Rabbi Yochanan said: The products of an ilpas are obligated, and these were those that he made in the sun. Which is to say: that Resh Lakish holds that the exemption of these is because they did not put the bread in an oven but rather in an ilpas, in the manner that one puts these things in a vessel and puts the vessel in the oven. And Rabbi Yochanan said that there is no difference between the products of an ilpas and the products of an oven—as long as the fire travels beneath it, as it says in the Yerushalmi. Rather, their exemption is because they were baked in the sun and not by fire. And the Shas there deliberates extensively on this, and afterward challenges Rabbi Yochanan from an explicit Baraita: If he made them in an ilpas, he is exempt. And Rabbi Yochanan answers: It is a dispute of Tannaim, and I hold like the one who says he is obligated, see there. And since the Rambam ruled like Rabbi Yochanan, it follows that the Mishna is not according to its plain meaning, and therefore he did not write it in his composition. And also our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, disagree there on this, as Rabbenu Tam ruled like Resh Lakish, and Ri ruled like Rabbi Yochanan, see there in Tosafot, starting with the words "De-kulei alma."

This is the wording of the Rambam there, law 12: Dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, honey, or boiling water, or into which one put spices, or if one boiled the water and threw the flour into it and kneaded it—whether one baked it in an oven, in the ground, or on a pan or a deep pan, whether one attached the dough to the pan or deep pan and afterwards heated them with fire from below until the bread was baked, or whether one heated it and afterwards attached the dough—all of these are obligated in challah. But one who makes dough to dry it in the sun alone, or to cook it in a pot—it is exempt from challah; for the product of the sun is not bread, whether one kneaded it with water or kneaded it with other liquids. Similarly, parched grain that one kneads with water or honey and eats without baking is exempt; for it is only obligated if it is dough that is intended to be baked into bread for human consumption. Thus far his words.

And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam, for us, all types of baking such as lekach and tart and other types of delicacies are obligated in challah when they contain the required measure. For according to him, there is no exemption except for baking in the sun or parched grain. And in our entire region, we have no such concept at all of baking in the sun, and similarly, parched grain is not known to us at all. And according to the Rambam, also all types of frying such as kreplach that are fried in butter, and blintzes and teigachz and pampiskes and latkes, and all similar to these, are obligated in challah, for one kneads them and bakes them in pans and deep pans. And there is no distinction according to him between a thick batter and a thin batter, or whether one used water or other liquids. And there is no exemption according to the Rambam from challah except when one kneads dough to boil, such as lokshen or farfel or boiled kreplach. And even with these, specifically when his intention from the beginning was to boil it; but if his intention was for some kind of baking, and afterward he changed his mind to boil it, or vice versa—it is obligated, for so he wrote there (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 6:13), and this is his wording: Dough that one kneaded initially to make it a product of the sun and completed it to make it bread, or that he began it for the baking of bread and completed it to make a product of the sun, and similarly parched grain that he kneaded to bake it as bread—it is obligated in challah. Thus far his words. And automatically, the same law applies to boiling it in a pot, for they have one law, as I wrote previously.

But I do not understand the opinion of the Rambam: For in the Yerushalmi there, Rava Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree regarding three things, as Rabbi Yochanan says there: It is obligated in challah, and one recites the blessing "ha-motzi" over it, and a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesach. And Resh Lakish said: It is not obligated in challah, and one does not recite the blessing "ha-motzi" over it, and one does not fulfill etc. And since he ruled regarding challah according to Rabbi Yochanan, he should have ruled also regarding "ha-motzi" and regarding the fulfillment of the obligation of matzah according to Rabbi Yochanan. And behold, in the third chapter of Berakhot, law 9, the Rambam wrote: Dough that was baked in the ground etc. one recites "borei minei mezonot." And so too dough that was kneaded with oil or honey or milk, or that one mixed into it types of spices etc. one recites "borei minei mezonot" etc. Thus far his words. And in the sixth chapter of Chametz U-Matzah, he ruled that dough kneaded with wine or oil or honey or milk—one does not fulfill with this the obligation of matzah, see there. Rather, it must necessarily be said that since in our Shas in Berakhot regarding that which is baked in the ground, and there regarding the matter of pat ha-ba'ah be-kisnin, that one does not recite "ha-motzi," and so too in Pesachim Rabbi Akiva holds that dough kneaded with wine and oil and honey one does not fulfill with it—he ruled accordingly and did not pay heed to the Yerushalmi. But nevertheless, at any rate, he determined from our Shas that the halacha is not like Rabbi Yochanan regarding the blessing and regarding matzah, but rather like Resh Lakish. If so, from where does the Rambam have it to rule like Rabbi Yochanan regarding challah? For certainly since they disagreed regarding three things, and in two the halacha is like Resh Lakish, presumably also in the third the halacha is like him, and from where does he have it to distinguish? And if it is because in our Shas they also disagreed regarding challah, nevertheless, have we not seen that Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both equate these three things to one another, and just as in two the halacha is like Resh Lakish—also in the third the halacha is like him. And it requires further study.

The words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch require explanation, as they wrote: There is no obligation of challah except with bread. Therefore, the sufgannin, which are soft and made like a sponge, and the duvshanin and the iskritin, which are fried in honey—are exempt from challah. And dough whose kneading is soft, and one baked it in an oven or in a pan, whether one heated and afterward attached it, or whether one attached it and afterward heated—it is obligated in challah, provided it is not by means of a liquid. And dough whose kneading is thick, and one rolled it with the intent to cook it, or to fry it, or to make it into sufgannin, or to dry it in the sun, and did so—it is exempt. If one rolled it to make bread from it, and reconsidered to cook it or to fry it or to make it into sufgannin, or to dry it in the sun—it is obligated, for it already became obligated from the time of rolling. If one rolled it with the intent of sufgannin and the like, and reconsidered to make it into bread—it is obligated. Thus far his words.

And behold, that which they wrote regarding the exemption for sufgannin, devashnin, and iskritin—even though their kneading is not thick like the dough of bread, as Rashi wrote there in Pesachim, that they knead their dough very soft, see there—nevertheless, it does not depend on this, as they themselves wrote afterward: Dough whose mixture is thick and one rolled it with the intent to cook it, or to fry it, or to make it into sufgannin, etc.—it is exempt. Thus far their words. Behold, it is explicit that even with a thick dough it is so, as I wrote in section 6. Rather, the permit is because these are not included in the category of bread.

And according to this, lekach and tart and thin wafers are exempt from challah. And likewise all types of frying in butter, such as kreplach fried in butter, and certainly kreplach for boiling, and blintzes and teigacht and latkes and pampushkes—are exempt from challah. For this is what they wrote: dough whose consistency is thick, and one kneaded it with the intent to boil it or to fry it, etc.—they are exempt. And that which they wrote: dough whose consistency is soft and one baked it in an oven or in a pan, etc.—it is obligated. This is when they remained so. But when they are made with the intent of frying or boiling—they are exempt, not like the opinion of the Rambam regarding lekach, etc. However, regarding boiling, even the Rambam admits, as has been explained.

And it is true that the opinion of our teacher Tam regarding a dough whose consistency is thick, and one made it with the intent to boil it or to fry it—it is obligated, as the Tur wrote in his name; see there. And according to this, one who makes dough for lokshen or for farfel is obligated in challah. And I have heard that in some places they are stringent in this to separate without a blessing. And in my humble opinion, one should not do so for two reasons: First: for the majority of our teachers disagree with him, as our teacher Shimshon, the author of the Tosafot, elaborated, as the Tur wrote in his name. And so too the Ramban in the laws of challah; see there. And furthermore: that even according to the opinion of our teacher Tam, this is only in a dough with water. But with eggs, as is the custom among us, behold we have the opinion of the Yerushalmi that a dough of fruit juice is exempt from challah. And we should not be overly stringent with stringencies regarding challah, for its essence is rabbinic in the Diaspora (so it appears in my humble opinion). But regarding lekach, etc., where the opinion of the Rambam is so for obligation, and so too regarding blintzes, etc., it would be possible to be concerned and to be stringent. But even in this, behold the opinion of the majority of our teachers is not so. And all the more so that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought neither the opinion of the Rambam nor the opinion of our teacher Tam; if so, why should we be stringent regarding challah of the Diaspora whose essence is rabbinic? And such is the custom (so it appears in my humble opinion).

They further wrote in section 4: Even when one makes it with the intention to boil it or the like, if his intention is to bake a small amount from it and he baked it, even if there is not a shiur of challah in that small amount—the whole of it becomes obligated through it. Thus far their words. For so it is implied in the Yerushalmi there, that we fear perhaps he will change his mind regarding the whole of it; so wrote the Rash and the Rosh. And he shall separate with a berakhah (Shach subsection 6). And some say even if he has not yet baked but changed his mind to bake a portion of it—the whole of it becomes obligated through this (Bakh and Shach subsection 5). And in any case, he should be careful to bake a small amount from it (ibid.), and place the baked item next to the dough, and separate challah. And some say that certainly if from the beginning of the kneading his intention was to bake a small amount from it—the whole of it becomes obligated through it. But if at the beginning his intention was for boiling, and afterwards he changed his mind to bake a small amount from it—the obligation is not from the core of the law unless he bakes first. Therefore, from the core of the law, he should not take challah before baking (Taz subsection 4).

They further wrote: Tarita, which is a dough whose batter is thin, and they pour it onto the stove, and it spreads out upon it and is baked – it is exempt. But if there is a depression in the stove and they pour it into it – it is considered bread and is obligated. And dough that they bake on a spit, and they smear it with oil or with eggs or with fruit juice – it is exempt. Thus far their words. And all these matters are not known to us, for they are not common in our places.

They further wrote: One who makes dough to dry it in the sun alone—it is exempt. This excludes if after the sun they bake it in an oven—it is obligated. And so too, parched grain that one kneads with water or with honey and eats without baking—it is exempt. But parched grain that one kneaded in order to bake it—it is obligated. And bread made for kutach, its preparation proves its status: if one made it into cakes, that is to say, one arranged it and made them in the form of bread—it is obligated. And if not—it is exempt. And dough that was kneaded with boiling water, whether one poured boiling water over the flour or one put the flour into boiling water—it is obligated, whether it was baked in an oven or in a pot without liquids. Thus far their words. And these matters as well are not known to us at all.